From the University of Utah, a way to keep tabs on Kyoto, except there isn’t any new treaties expected to be signed.
Measuring CO2 to fight global warming
University of Utah and Harvard scientists develop way to enforce future greenhouse gas treaty

SALT LAKE CITY, May 14, 2012 – If the world’s nations ever sign a treaty to limit emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide gas, there may be a way to help verify compliance: a new method developed by scientists from the University of Utah and Harvard.
Using measurements from only three carbon-dioxide (CO2) monitoring stations in the Salt Lake Valley, the method could reliably detect changes in CO2 emissions of 15 percent or more, the researchers report in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences for the week of May 14, 2012.
The method is a proof-of-concept first step even though it is less precise than the 5 percent accuracy recommended by a National Academy of Sciences panel in 2010. The study’s authors say satellite monitoring of carbon dioxide levels ultimately may be more accurate than the ground-based method developed in the new study.
“The primary motivation for the study was to take high-quality data of atmospheric CO2 in an urban region and ask if you could predict the emissions patterns based on CO2 concentrations in the air,” says study coauthor Jim Ehleringer, a distinguished professor of biology at the University of Utah.
“The ultimate use is to verify CO2 emissions in the event that the world’s nations agree to a treaty to limit such emissions,” he says. “The idea is can you combine concentration information – CO2 in the air near the ground – and weather patterns, which is wind blowing, and mathematically determine emissions based on that information.”
Ehleringer did the study with four Massachusetts atmospheric scientists: Kathryn McKain and Steven Wofsy of Harvard University, and Thomas Nehrkorn and Janusz Eluszkiewicz of Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.
While the method can detect changes of 15 percent or more in CO2 levels, determining absolute levels is tricky and depends on certain assumptions, but it can be done, Ehleringer says.
“The model [new method] predicts more CO2 emissions than we see,” based on a federal government survey that previously estimated carbon dioxide emissions based on interviews with gas- and coal-burning utilities and sellers of fuel and natural gas, he says. “That shouldn’t surprise you. People are underreporting.”
Estimating CO2 Emissions
Ehleringer began monitoring carbon dioxide levels in the Salt Lake Valley in 2002 as part of a National Science Foundation-funded study of the urban airshed. The monitoring network measures CO2 from six sites across the Salt Lake Valley and a seventh well above the valley at Snowbird.
“It is the most extensive publicly available and online data set of CO2 concentrations in an urban area in the world,” he says (co2.utah.edu).
The new study created a computer simulation of CO2 emissions in the Salt Lake Valley using three sources of information:
- CO2 measurements from three sites – the University of Utah, downtown Salt Lake City and Murray, Utah, about halfway south down the valley’s length.
- Data from weather stations in the valley, crunched through weather forecasting software used to predict wind and air circulation.
- Satellite data showing what parts of the valley are covered by homes, other buildings, trees, agriculture and so on.
The emissions estimates from the simulation were compared with the results of the government survey that estimates CO2 emissions.
“You come up with estimates for emissions that are within 15 percent or better of the actual emissions for the region,” Ehleringer says.
Even though that is not as precise as desired by the National Academy of Sciences, “it is a very powerful first step,” he adds. “However we would like to be within 5 percent for treaty verification purposes.”
Because urban regions are major sources of CO2, “a large fraction of a country’s emissions likely emanate from such regions, and results from several representative cities over time could provide strong tests of claimed emission reductions at national or regional scales,” the researchers write.
The simulation showed how ground-level CO2 concentrations increased overnight when air was calm, and then decreased in the morning as sunlight mixed the air and plants consumed CO2 due to photosynthesis. Sometimes the simulation failed to catch the exact time this mixing occurred.
That is part of the reason the researchers argue satellite measurements through a mile-thick vertical column of air may better estimate CO2 concentrations and thus emissions by being less sensitive to ground-level variations close and far from emissions sources like smokestacks or intersections with idling vehicles.
Several satellites around the world now make limited CO2 measurements. But the researchers write that “no presently planned satellite has the necessary orbit or targeting capability” for the desired urban CO2 measurements.
Several previous studies looked at CO2 levels in various cities, but none at the full urban scale or with accuracy near what is required for treaty verification, the researchers say. The only study that accurately measured an urban area’s CO2 emissions over time – in Heidelberg, Germany – did so with a method too expensive for routine use.
Ehleringer’s part of the research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. The study says his coauthors were funded by NASA, the National Science Foundation and – without specifics – “by the U.S. intelligence community,” which would be involved in treaty verification.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This CO2 measuring device is about as useful as a flux capacitor. Think of all of the money, time, and resources spent on a device that would be used to measure a trace gas, which will be used enforce a treaty that will never be ratified here. Does Dr.Erhleringer know something we don’t?
OT but did not this extend to the climategate inquiries or person(s) involved re Norfolk police I recall something in climate audit some time ago….
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/world/europe/rebekah-brooks-to-learn-if-she-will-face-charges.html?_r=1&hp&pagewanted=all
Meaningless. Except that someone approved funding of this ‘study’, using money basically stolen from the taxpayer for this purpose. With each new instance of such hateful science-for-policy, I feel a general sense of foreboding. That there are people in the world who think this type of thing is good, is very frightening indeed: they will seek the power, and if they are your neighbor, they will be phoning hotlines to report you while smiling and waving across the hedge. It sends shivers down my spine.
Am I to understand they are modeling the emissions instead of measuring them?
@jjthoms
And if the rising trend line is not caused by CO2 at all, but something else?
jjthoms says:
May 15, 2012 at 5:11 am
…as CO2 increases so will temperature, so will water vapour content.
That is the assumption that is built into all models. Unfortunately it does not bear out when tested in the real world.
For better sampling, these devices could be mounted on the city vehicles prowling our Salt Lake neighborhoods in search of violators of ‘garbage separation and minimum fill regulations’ of our various types of trash bins.
Pamela Gray says:
May 15, 2012 at 6:23 am
We must, we must, vote these people out and clean up all the institutions they have flocked to. That includes the Dept of Ag, our National Forest Service, NOAA, NASA, and Ivory Towers everywhere.
=======
Stop your government from using fear to borrow money in your name to fund the very same agencies that promote fear to gain more funding. So long as you allow yourselves to be manipulated by fear you have lost control of your government.
The quickest way to take control of politics is to prevent the government from borrowing money to give to their friends. Otherwise, the folks with money give it to the politicians to spend on getting elected, and once elected the politicians pay it back to their friends 10 fold from your pocket. So long as politicians can borrow in your name, the corruption will continue to grow. Look at the US debt and calculate how much longer before the day of reckoning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
Just another reason to vote all the democrats out this November!
jjthoms;
Have you not heard of a noisy signal?!
The co2 effect is burried in noise but it is there >>>>
I was going to jump all over this, but several other commenters have already eviscerated your argument. Yes, I know about noise. I hear it from people like you all the time.
Why aren’t open path FTIRs built for the CO2 band being used, or better yet using night sky as a background?
“People are underreporting.”
Power plants burning fossil fuel are required by law to report their GHG emisssions, either by using a factor based on fuel usage or by actual concentration and mass flow rate going up the stack. There are myriad quality control checks, calibrations, etc. required and the reports are submitted and required to be truthful under penalty of law. So the law is ineffective in preventing underreporting? Or has the study made an error in causation in the comparison of the model results and real numbers? You choose……
“The simulation showed how ground-level CO2 concentrations increased overnight when air was calm, and then decreased in the morning as sunlight mixed the air and plants consumed CO2 due to photosynthesis.”
This is probably wrong, too. As I understand Utah is mostly arid environment, so plants would be mostly succulent, running CAM metabolism, therefor binding CO2 during the night, not during the day.
[CAM:Crassulacean acid metabolism, also known as CAM photosynthesis, is a carbon fixation pathway that evolved in some plants as an adaptation to arid conditions. In a plant using full CAM, the stomata in the leaves remain shut during the day to reduce evapotranspiration, but open at night to collect carbon dioxide (CO2). The CO2 is stored as the four-carbon acid malate, and then used during photosynthesis during the day. The pre-collected CO2 is concentrated around the enzyme RuBisCO, increasing photosynthetic efficiency.]
Hmmm. . . . . .In the Brave New World we’re headed into I can see each Environmental Protection Agent carrying a CO2 Breathalyzer to identify miscreants who are releasing too much CO2 into Gaea’s atmosphere. . .
“a new method to estimate carbon dioxide emissions and thus verify compliance with a greenhouse gas treaty”. An estimate is now verification?
Why go to all the effort? Dart boards have been around since the Medieval warm period.
Bill Tuttle says: May 15, 2012 at 6:33 am
…as temperature increases so will CO2. It may not be visible to the naked eye but it is there forever either increasing or decreasing, generally following the temperature at an 800-year lag rate.
==============
Brilliant – can you possibly give an explanation for the current CO2 increase?
Can you possibly say what causes a 800 year lag (- this is your theory to explain) there must be a physical explanation for this delay – it’s not solar, it’s not cosmic rays, it’s not plant growth (look at the spring autumn swings in the CO2 levels – the delay is months)
With an 800 year lag you would expect a very slow rise time in CO2. Most of the current increase is since 1930s (80 years!)
=====================
MarkW says: May 15, 2012 at 8:06 am
And if the rising trend line is not caused by CO2 at all, but something else?
===========
Well first you need to find a change in the energy balancing mechanism that is not cyclical – care to suggest one?
====================
Allan MacRae says: May 15, 2012 at 6:40 am
CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales; there has been no net global warming for 10-15 years; probable global cooling soon; finally, the system is not static, it is dynamic, so your rmodel fails
=====================
Not my model. Not meant to be a projection. But it just shows how temperature can remain static
with a 60 year cycle and a continually rising trend.
============
ddpalmer says: May 15, 2012 at 5:37 am
So the temperature increase due to CO2 is going to be exponential even though it is well known that the effects of CO2 are logarithmic?
================
I believe the exponential-like curve is simply there to provide a fit to the *current* data. Who is able to predict the future. Co2 increase leads to higher temperatures which leads to h20 increase
which leads to higher temps which leads to mor h20 etc. + may lead to CH4 release +leads to more LWIR to space. + more clouds leading to cooling/heating etc. etc.
@jjthoms
“I believe the exponential-like curve is simply there to provide a fit to the *current* data. Who is able to predict the future.”
So you don’t even understand the graph you linked to?
A straight line would better fit the *current* data, the real exponential part isn’t until after the present.
And I agree, who can predict the future? But your link is to a prediction of the future, so you obviously think it is possible. You just can’t explain it. I guess we can just say it is magic.
ThO2ught Police.
Oh my!
jjthoms says:
May 15, 2012 at 10:37 am
@ur momisugly me, May 15, 2012 at 6:33 am
Brilliant – can you possibly give an explanation for the current CO2 increase?
The same mechanisms that caused CO2 to increase in the past, just before it plummeted — about 800 years after the temperature did.
Can you possibly say what causes a 800 year lag (- this is your theory to explain) there must be a physical explanation for this delay – it’s not solar, it’s not cosmic rays, it’s not plant growth (look at the spring autumn swings in the CO2 levels – the delay is months)
It’s not my theory to explain at all — it’s what’s been observed. You’re really, really *new* at this, aren’t you?
With an 800 year lag you would expect a very slow rise time in CO2. Most of the current increase is since 1930s (80 years!)
Geez, you *are* new at this. I suggest you read this:
http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html
and look at the prevailing carbon dioxide levels in comparison to the reconstructed temperatures in the graph. For a nice discussion on the CO2-temperature correlation, there’s this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/04/a-new-paper-in-nature-suggests-co2-leads-temperature-but-has-some-serious-problems/
Honza says:
May 15, 2012 at 10:19 am
Take a look at the observed Rose Park data in SLC:
http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=2&id=0&img=30
the minimum occurs during the day. So you’re probably wrong.
/SATIRE/
Sometime in the future, on a tv screen near you…
Air-head-idiot-repeater:
‘Jimmy Airlinger gave testimony today about his role in the deaths of millions of human beings who could not afford to eat or to heat their living spaces following the price rises driven by the Carbon Taxation schemes which he helped to enforce. Sentencing for Crimes Against Humanity will begin later this afternoon with Hans Jameson and Michelle Boy expected to receive the death penalty for their role in the tragedy. Their defense? The Team were heard to scream, “I was only doing my job” and, “I was only following orders”, as they were led from the witness box earlier today.’
/SATIRE/
Climate Science….Making tax dollars disappear since 1988.
“University of Utah biologist Jim Ehleringer”
Sorry, he is not a climate scientist (or even a chemist), so how can he be qualified to work on measuring CO2?
/
Typo: “except there isn’t any new treaties expected to be signed”